36390 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 1998 / Notices

This notice of initiation is being

published in accordance with section

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

Dated: June 29, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–17789 Filed 7–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–485–602]

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof From Romania: Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On March 6, 1998, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on tapered

roller bearings and parts thereof,

finished or unfinished (‘‘TRBs’’), from

Romania. This review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period June 1, 1996, through May

31, 1997. We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have not changed the results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

review.

We received no comments from

interested parties with regard to the

Department’s preliminary determination

to grant Tehnoimportexport, S.A.

(‘‘TIE’’) a separate rate for this review.

Therefore, for the final results of review,

we reaffirm our determination that TIE

is entitled to a separate rate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carrie Blozy or Rick Johnson, Office of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Enforcement, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–0374 or (202) 482–3818.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (‘‘the Act’’), are to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to 19

CFR Part 353 (April 1997).

Background

On March 6, 1998, the Department

published in the Federal Register (63

FR 11217) the preliminary results of its

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on TRBs from

Romania (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We

gave interested parties an opportunity to

comment on our preliminary results. We

received written comments from

respondent, TIE, and from Universal

Automotive Trading Company Ltd.

(‘‘Universal’’), an interested party.

Comments submitted consisted of

respondent’s case brief of April 6, 1998

and Universal’s rebuttal brief of April

13, 1998.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of TRBs from Romania.

These products include flange, take-up

cartridge, and hanger units

incorporating tapered roller bearings,

and tapered roller housings (except

pillow blocks) incorporating tapered

rollers, with or without spindles,

whether or not for automotive use. This

merchandise is currently classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) item numbers 8482.20.00,

8482.91.00, 8482.99.30, 8483.20.40,

8483.30.40, and 8483.90.20. Although

the HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, the

written description of the scope of this

order remains dispositive. The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is June

1, 1996, through May 31, 1997.

Analysis of Comment Received

Comment 1: Respondent and

Universal assert that the Department

erred in its calculation of freight for

certain steel supplies imported from

Russia. Respondent states that, based on

the Department’s language in its

analysis memorandum, the longest

possible distance used in this review to

calculate freight for steel supplies

should be either the distance from the

Romanian steel mill to the Alexandria

factory (280 km) or from Constanza, the

port, to the Alexandria factory (350 km). Petitioner did not comment on this

issue.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with respondent and Universal. As

stated in the analysis memorandum for

the preliminary results, the Department

‘‘added to CIF surrogate values from

Indonesia a surrogate freight cost using

the shorter of the reported distances

from either the closest port to the

manufacturer’s factory, or from the

actual supplier to the manufacturer’s

factory.’’ See TIE Analysis

Memorandum for the Preliminary

Results of Review (‘‘Analysis

Memorandum’’) at page 5 (March 2,

1998). The Department established this

methodology for accounting for the

freight component of surrogate values in

Collated Roofing Nails from the People’s

Republic of China, 62 FR 25895 (May

12, 1997) (‘‘Nails’’). Thus, if the material

was domestically produced or imported

from a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’)

supplier, we used the shorter of (a) the

distance between the closest Romanian

port and the factory, or (b) the distance

between the actual supplier and the

factory to calculate a freight cost.

As noted on page 5 of the Analysis

Memorandum, some of the distances

between Alexandria and NME suppliers

were not reported. For those missing

distances, the Department assigned a

distance of 3000 km, the longest

distance reported in the submission. See

Analysis Memorandum at page 5.

However, despite respondent’s

assertion, the Department correctly

calculated a freight cost for those inputs

using 350 km, which is the shorter of

the distance between Constanza and

Alexandria (350 km) and the distance

between Alexandria and the Russian

NME supplier (3000 km). Therefore, the

Department calculated freight in a

manner consistent with the

methodology established in Nails.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

determine the dumping margin (in

percent) for the period June 1, 1996,

through May 30, 1997, to be as follows:

Exporter Margin (percent)

TIE ............................................ 0.86

The Department will determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. For assessment purposes, we

have calculated an importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rate for the

merchandise based on the ratio of the

total amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales during

the POR to the total quantity of sales

examined during the POR. The
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 1998 / Notices 36391

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service. Furthermore, the following

deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of the final results of

this administrative review for all

shipments of TRBs from Romania

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided for by

section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) the

cash deposit rate for TIE will be the rate

we determine in the final results of

review; (2) for all other Romanian

exporters, the cash deposit rate will be

the Romania-wide rate made effective

by the amended final results of the

1994–95 administrative review (see

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from

Romania; Amendment of Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 59416 (November 22,

1996)); (3) for non-Romanian exporters

of subject merchandise from Romania,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

applicable to the Romanian supplier of

that exporter. These deposit

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR 353.26 of the

Department’s regulations to file a

certificate regarding the reimbursement

of antidumping duties prior to

liquidation of the relevant entries

during this review period. Failure to

comply with this requirement could

result in the Secretary’s presumption

that reimbursement of antidumping

duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping

duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). Timely

written notification of the return/

destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

This notice is issued and published in

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and

777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 11, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–17788 Filed 7–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Procedures for Delivery of HEU Natural

Uranium Component in the United

States

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is announcing procedures and required

certifications pursuant to the USEC

Privatization Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Doyle, Karla Whalen, or Letitia

Kress, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III,

Office VII, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202)

482–0159, (202) 482–1386, or (202) 482–

6412, respectively.

Background

On April 25, 1996, Congress passed

the United States Enrichment

Corporation Privatization Act (The

USEC Privatization Act), 42 U.S.C.

2297h et seq. The USEC Privatization

Act required the U.S. Department of

Commerce (the Department) to

administer and enforce the limitations

set forth in Section 42 U.S.C. 2297h–

10(b)(5) of the USEC Privatization Act.

On January 7, 1998, the Department

issued Procedures for Delivery of HEU

Natural Uranium Component in the

United States (The HEU Procedures).

On March 20, 1998, the Department

issued Annex 1 to the HEU Procedures

to clarify certain requirements detailed

in the HEU Procedures. This

announcement provides public

notification of the HEU Procedures and

their Annex 1. Annex 1 details required

certification language and includes two

additional certification requirements in

items A and C. Item A is an amendment

to the certifications currently required

of all importers of uranium, regardless

of national origin. Item B is the

designated agent’s certification referred

to Section B of the HEU Procedures.

Item C lists all the certifications which

must accompany all quarterly reports

submitted to the Department in

accordance with section C of the HEU

Procedures.

The following Attachment 1 provides

the Procedures for the Delivery of HEU

Natural Uranium Component in the

United States and Attachment 2

provides Annex 1 to the HEU

Procedures.

Dated: June 25, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group III, Import

Administration.

Attachment 1—Procedures for Delivery of

HEU Natural Uranium Component in the

United States

A. Annual Maximum Deliveries

The United States Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) designates the

Ministry of Atomic Energy of the Russian

Federation (‘‘MINATOM’’), or its designated

agent, to allocate the annual maximum

deliveries of HEU natural uranium

component among any marketing agent(s)

authorized by MINATOM to sell the HEU

natural uranium component in the United

States. The annual maximum deliveries

which may be allocated by MINATOM are set

forth in the United States Enrichment

Corporation (USEC) Privatization Act, 42

U.S.C. 2297h–10(b)(5) (‘‘Delivery Schedule’’).

For each agent receiving a delivery

allocation, MINATOM will issue a certificate

identifying such agent, the duration of the

allocation, and the maximum annual amount

to be delivered under that certificate. The

certificate(s) will also contain a statement

that the material to be delivered to the agent

for sale in the United States will be delivered

for consumption only. MINATOM will

provide a copy of all such certificates to the

Department within 10 days of issuance.

The cumulative amount of the deliveries

authorized by such certificates each year may

not exceed the annual maximum deliveries

set forth in the Delivery Schedule. Annual

deliveries allocated to any given agent may

be re-allocated to any other agent(s) or to

MINATOM within the same annual period

subject to the annual maximum deliveries

under the following conditions:

—The Department is notified of the reallocation no later than December 1 of the

affected annual period;

—MINATOM provides the Department with

a copy of the amended and/or terminated

certificate(s) from which delivery

allocation is to be withdrawn and a copy

of the new certificate(s) re-allocating such

deliveries.

New contracts entered into by any agent(s)

as a result of re-allocation will be subject to

the approval process outlined in paragraph B.

If, in any given annual period, an agent

delivers less than the maximum

flexibility(ies) under an approved contract(s),

such agent may enter into a new contract(s)

for the difference between its actual

deliveries during that year and the maximum

flexibilities under the contract(s) for that

same year, provided that the agent’s total

annual deliveries under all contracts do not

exceed the agent’s delivery allocation or the

annual maximum deliveries and provided

that the following conditions are met:

—The Department is notified of the agent’s

intention to re-direct deliveries by

December 1;